CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Church View (Bishop Auckland)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They were assured about visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Church View (Bishop Auckland) was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 November 2020. It checked how the home was preventing and controlling coronavirus infections during the CQC's response to outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found good infection control arrangements. These included checks for health professional visits, enough personal protective equipment, staff training, social distancing, cleaning and sanitising of frequently touched surfaces.
The home was supporting 43 people, although it could provide care for up to 45. The inspection looked only at infection prevention and control, so the service was inspected but not rated rather than given an overall quality rating.
Personal protective equipment
The home had enough masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff were seen using PPE properly and there were enough PPE stations.
“Staff were seen to be wearing PPE appropriately during the visit and there were sufficient PPE stations throughout the home.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had a cleaning schedule and inspectors found it clean and tidy, with particular attention to frequently touched areas.
“A cleaning schedule was in place and we observed the home was clean and tidy with emphasis on cleaning and sanitising regular touch points, such as door handles and light switches.” from the report
Visits and infection checks
There were safety arrangements for visits by health professionals, including temperature checks, health questionnaires and PPE.
“Safe arrangements were in place for people to receive visits from health professionals which included a temperature check, health questionnaire and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks and hand sanitiser.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training on using PPE and other coronavirus-related matters.
“Staff had undertaken training in putting on and taking off PPE and other Covid-19 related training.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently checking visitors and health professionals before they enter the home?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested, and how are the results managed?
- 03What is your current process for admitting new residents safely?
- 04How would you manage an infection outbreak, and how would you keep families informed?
- 05How often are frequently touched areas such as door handles and light switches cleaned?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated on the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing and care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were supported by kind and respectful staff. Medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Staffing levels needed reviewing because staff could feel rushed. Some risks were not fully recorded, and care plans did not always include people's life histories or feel fully personal. The manager said these areas were being addressed.
The previous inspection, published on 20 September 2017, also rated the home Good. This report says the home remained Good in all five areas.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw a warm and friendly atmosphere. Staff knew people's preferences and treated them with dignity.
“Staff were kind, patient, respectful and considerate. They understood every person and knew what was important to them.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were managed, given and stored safely. Staff who administered them had training and regular competency checks.
“Medicines were managed, administered and stored safely in line with good practice guidelines.” from the report
Good support with food
People had choices, snacks and drinks throughout the day. The cook took particular care with altered diets, including making pureed meals resemble ordinary meals.
“The cook was extremely passionate about their role and supporting people who needed adaptive diets such as purred.” from the report
Positive management and quality checks
The provider used audits to monitor quality and safety. The management team was open about weaknesses and responded to the inspection feedback.
“The registered manager was open and honest with us about the service, its strengths and weaknesses and areas they were further developing.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People enjoyed activities inside and outside the home. A new activity coordinator had started and people and staff were positive about this.
“A new activity coordinator had been employed to further develop the activity provision. People and staff felt very positive about this.” from the report
Staffing could be stretched
needs fixingPeople's needs were met, but staff and relatives said staff could be rushed or stretched, especially when someone went on a break. Inspectors recommended reviewing day and night staffing levels.
“We recommend the provider looks at the staffing levels for both day and night shifts.” from the report
Risk records lacked detail
needs fixingRisks had been identified, but records did not always explain fully how staff were reducing those risks. The manager said care plans were being updated.
“However, they did not document all the details of what staff were doing to mitigate risks.” from the report
Care plans not always personal enough
needs fixingCare plans gave staff useful information, but not all people's life histories had been explored and recorded. The manager planned to make the plans more person centred.
“However, not all people's life histories were explored and documented.” from the report
More one-to-one supervision
minorMost staff supervisions were held in groups. Some staff said they would feel better supported by one-to-one supervision, and the manager said this would be arranged.
“Staff we spoke with said they feel they would benefit more from one to one supervision.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on each floor during the day and night, and what happens when someone takes a break or is absent?
- 02How have you acted on the recommendation to review staffing levels?
- 03How do you record each person's risks and the steps staff must take to reduce them?
- 04How have care plans been updated to include each person's life history, preferences and personal routines?
- 05How often do staff now receive one-to-one supervision?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection had also rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Church View (Bishop Auckland)
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Church View (Bishop Auckland) →
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Church View (Bishop Auckland) →
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.